The three points of concern in the current evaluation form is how personal characteristics and relation with other co-workers was manipulated so as to be seen as a weakness on the side of the engineer. Another point of concern is the tentative decision where friendliness was considered in the evaluation to show the engineer is unfriendly and that he cannot associate and socialize well with other workers in the company (Werther & Keith, 2000).
The attitude of was another point of concern in the evaluation form. It was rated to suggest that the engineer is not attentive when the manager is addressing the workers and has poor attitude towards his colleagues at work place. All these were introduced intentionally in the evaluation form because the engineer was being targeted (Moats, 2001).
1. Define what should be evaluated in a performance evaluation.
Performance evaluation is the performance review and the discussion on the method, which the job performance of a worker or employee is evaluated and analyzed in terms of quality, time, cost, and quantity. This is done by the corresponding supervisor or manager so as to know the areas of weakness and what needs to be improved (Moats, 2001).
In performance evaluation, what should be evaluated is what someone has achieved within the time frame set for him, the way the worker interact and share ideas and experiences with other co-workers in the organization and his punctuality. On punctuality or time management, the worker should be evaluated based on his efficiency and effectiveness in meeting the deadlines and ability work without supervision. The quality of his work must be considered and his target attainment (Werther & Keith, 2000).
The common sets of evaluation criteria include the cost, quality, cost, and non-cost factors. The most important criteria should be selected than the less important one. Proposal evaluation on factors and sub-factors should solely be stated in solicitation. Evaluation criteria are used to satisfy the needs that are needed in the selection of decision-making. This is good for assessment and thorough evaluation (Werther & Keith, 2000).
All the common sets of criteria are tailored for each acquisition that has an impact on the method used for evaluation. The type and nature of evaluation criterion used within the broad discretion must be compatible. Past performance of an employee must be considered as an evaluation factor unless determined otherwise by the method used (Moats, 2001).
Evaluation process is critical and must be handled with care because it may cause unending conflicts and misunderstanding in the organization. Including the subordinate in the evaluation process will make them feel part of the organization and feel part and parcel of the organization and they are recognized. It will reduce resistance as experience when the engineer’s co-workers resented on the energy saving plant suggested in the organization. They rejected it because of personality. The supervisors and the peers are important because they are always close with the worker and understand him. This reduces cases of personalization, favor, prejudice, malice and unfair judgment of the worker (Werther & Keith, 2000).
The peers and supervisors will have known their co-worker in depth and they can provide true information needed about him or her during evaluation process. This will enhance communication and free interaction because they can openly and freely discuss issues they can all understand and agree on one thing. It will reduce cases of fear and favorism (Moats, 2001).
There are a few disadvantages of including supervisors, subordinate and peers in the evaluation. They may influence the whole process and tarnish someone’s name because of ill motives; for instance, what was done to the engineer by his co-workers (Moats, 2001). Supervisors may be threatened by your performance; they will manipulate the information so as to be seen as a non-performer. This will hinder someone’s promotion and salary increment. The non-performers and especially the peers can say anything bad to been seen as a weakness in your part; hence affecting your reputation negatively (Werther & Keith, 2000).
There several methods used in performance evaluation and these include: The essay method, behavioral anchored rating scales and the rating method overview. The essay method is where the appraiser who may be the manager or manager describes the worker by writing down his or her weaknesses, strengths and finally make recommendation on the areas he or she needs to improve and any other development requirements that is deemed necessary for the worker (Werther & Keith, 2000).
The appraiser will have the opportunity and time to describe the employee special talents, promotion if need be, salary increment and his unique characteristics. The behavioral anchored rating scale is similar to the essay method because employee performance is checked and how he has been performing the work based on his ability. It only differs with the essay method because it only uses part of employee performance for evaluation and other performance criteria such as judgment may be used (Werther & Keith, 2000).
The rating method overview is where evaluation depends on the number of employees or workers doing the same job so that their performances can be compared and contrasted. This method is similar with the first two methods because they all depend on the performance of the employees. The rating overview method differs with the first two methods because this is the only method where employee resources are considered before he or she evaluated and rated. The other similarity with all the three methods is that, employee performance is written down then they are analyzed for conclusions to be made (Moats, 2001).
Performance evaluation effectiveness and efficiency can be diluted by subjective measures that cannot be quantified. For example, evaluation and appraisal of fast-food employees’ honesty, courtesy, truthfulness, and attitude may be erroneousness judged due to biasness. Distortion of the outcome due to emotions may lead to bias results. For example, judging employee performance based on his recent actions instead of taking into account his long-term performance pattern is unfair (Moats, 2001).
The cross-cultural effects may produce erroneous or biased results because employees may be rated on the basis of their race, tribe, or his family background. All the three errors are the common elements that affect the accuracy of the performance evaluation (Moats, 2001).
To improve on performance evaluation in the given situation, the company must adopt the method that will be used to evaluate all employees so as to avoid biasness and unfairness. The technique should not be used because some people are being targeted with ill motives as in the case of the engineer. Performance evaluation must be agreed upon by all the managers and the employees of the organization in order to enhance transparency and fairness to all employees (Werther & Keith, 2000).
Werther, W. B. and Keith, D. (2000). Human Resources and Personnel Management. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Moats, M. K. (2001). "The Case for Performance Appraisals." New York: McGraw-Hill.